Natural Law - The Atheist’s Anodyne
“The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.” - Eric Hoffer
As must be apparent from my earlier post, I am interested, or at least amused, by the interplay of science, religion and atheism. So the other night while “stumbling” I came across: ATHEIST EMPIRE
It is a slick and polished looking site and promised to keep me reading for a good while. Unfortunately, not so. I was fine until came across something that lept off the “page” and stopped me in my tracks. The source of my shock was the following, from a section addressing morals and ethics:
“There are however a few common ideas derived from natural laws that are considered immoral such as deceit, theft, murder any any other kind of caused suffering “ (emphasis added)
I couldn’t believe my eyes.
Alas, it seems that even atheists are not immune from the discomfort of confronting a meaningless universe. If there is no Cosmic Prankster behind it all, at least we can take comfort in knowing that “natural law” is there to guide us and make us feel “right”.
I felt an uncontrollable to urge to write mail to the site owner(s) but could not, so I was reduced to posting the following on their Message Board:
I attempted to email this but obviously could not, so I must post it publicly here. I started reading the site with interest until I reached the following, after which I couldn’t bring myself to continue: “There are however a few common ideas derived from natural laws that are considered immoral such as deceit, theft, murder any any other kind of caused suffering ”
How anyone calling himself or herself an atheist could speak of “natural law” is beyond me. There are no deities but there are “natural” laws? Inherent prohibition of certain activities?
Excepting the scientific usage meaning something like “a theory tested and established to a degree of certainy that non-acceptance would be perverse”, the word “law” refers to an entirely human construct. There is nothing whatever “natural” about “laws”.
What difference, pray tell, between laws respecting human behaviour that are derived from ‘god’ and laws respecting human behaviour that are derived from…. existence?
I am stunned. You are lending credence to my long, but loosely, held suspicion that perhaps atheists are every bit as irrational as theists.
I won’t go on, but I hope that anyone who cannot see what drivel the concept of “natural law” itself is and see further that the idea of an “atheist” subscribing to such nonsense is utterly preposterous, will take the time to track down and read Robert Anton Wilson’s brief book “Natural Law - Or Don’t Put A Rubber On Your Willy”.
_________________________
Since first posting Agnosticism and The New Atheism I received a couple of comments and some interesting correspondence. Those things, plus some further hunting on the web have led me to a conclusion:
For practical purposes, the words “atheist” and “agnostic” are meaningless, which is to say so many people assign so many different and sometimes self-contradictory meanings to them that should someone say “I am an atheist.” without further clarification it is impossible for the listener to know precisely what the speaker means. With that in mind, I will henceforth try my best to not use the words - though it will be necessary to use “agnostic” when completing online registrations with limited options. From now on, when the subject arises I will say “I neither believe nor disbelieve in god or gods.” If they can’t figure out what that means, well then to “hell” with them.
Posted in Science and Religion
January 19th, 2008 at 2:54 am
I’ll have to largely agree with you on a couple of points. I have followed your conversation over at ‘iamanatheist.com’ so I know where you’re coming from on this issue of the meaning of atheism and agnosticism. For my part if I’m asked I would have to say I’m an atheist even though I can’t say that I’m 100% certain there is no god. You’re right that without further clarification it is impossible to know what I mean so more explanation would be required. That’s why I largely try to avoid being labeled that way. Philosophically speaking I’m more of an agnostic since I don’t have the knowledge and find it unlikely that we ever will to settle the debate. But I don’t say I’m agnostic about Greek gods so I don’t say it about the christian/judeo god. It seems to me that of the two words, atheist comes closer to getting a ballpark figure of what I believe or don’t believe.
But anyway, on to the rest of your post. I too find that particular comment a little strange with regard to natural laws. When I think of the term ‘natural laws’ all I hear is ’scientific laws’ like those established by Newton and Einstein. And I don’t see how any of those have a damn thing to do with morality. I think if they had just left out your emphasized text the statement would have been much more accurate. That’s not to say that statement would be perfect or 100% true if it were worded that way.
I just think that based on what we know about early tribal civilizations and even some pack/community animals these ‘ideas’ were probably beneficial to the survival of that group.
How about this?
“There are however a few common ideas that are considered detrimental such as deceit, theft, murder or any other kind of caused suffering.”
Regards,
Jason
January 19th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Hello again, Jason.
Yes, if “natural laws” simply referred to nature there would be no problem. And if a person said that certain “values” seem to have been selected for - such as cooperation, empathy etc., - indeed that would find agreement with me. As used in this context, though, “natural law” is a phrase used by many libertarians, among others, to mean inherent qualities or moral mandates. Of course, in my view, this is absurd on the face of it. One need only witness young children behaving “naturally” to see that we are, if anything, inherently feral, greedy and cruel and that our more noble characteristics appear to be a function of socialization, not universal inheritance.
I find it amusing when I see atheists use this term because, among other things, is strikes me as almost sad. It is no different than when I point out to my Christian friends that I have no need for their bible to know that - from my viewpoint - being ‘nice’ is far more sane (and fun) than succumbing to my more unpleasant genetic imperatives (rape, theft, racism etc). Why some atheists seem to need external guidance when simple common sense will suffice, I do not know. And let’s face it, what the term refers to - a non-material, abstract, external dictate manifested in humans - sounds suspiciously like….. well, god. Does it not?
Thanks for your attention and input yet again, Mr. J.
Cheers.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:29 am
It probably refers to Hobbes state of nature (aka always taking self interested route).
__________________________________
Hello Samuel.
It may well, but every time I have encountered the term the context led me to believe that the assertion was that there exist certain directives respecting behaviour that are both universal and senior to man. Consider the context here: theft, murder, suffering…
Now, were this referring to something like, say, Dawkins’ selfish gene, I’d find it reasonable, if debatable. However, I simply cannot shake my interpretation that “natural law” is an ersatz Ten Commandments, conjured up to provide both comfort and an argument/defence against things such as Alister Crowley’s “Let ‘Do what thou wilt’ be the whole of the law.” In a way I consider it closely tied to the idea of “rights” - hence the attraction to certain libertarians. In a godless universe all one can reasonably say about “rights” is “There are none.”. Or, put differently, “Everyone has the right to do whatever he/she sees fit and everyone else has en equal right to prevent them from doing so.” It is a hard one to swallow, but inescapable, in my view.
Another aspect of the matter I will mention but not dwell on is this: If there are these “natural laws”, who, pray tell, will interpret them and under what authority?
Thanks for visiting and taking the time to leave your comment.
Cheers,
John
January 26th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Wow! Someone actually used the mail slot! Sorry- second time and the first guy was nuts.
Anyway you are right about people not having inalienable rights. Some people stick to the idea that they have rights granted from down high. Just because someone is an atheist doesnn’t mean they are rational (see astrology)- it onl means they don’t believe in one form of nonsense.
Figuring out how to justify these things is hard. Our brians seem to be wired to figure it out easily and quickly so are rationalization has a hard time catching up. On the subject of rights all i can say is that we have them, not because they are granted to use, but because they help allow society to function the best. I take the view that the rationale for working together in a society is 1) it makes us all better of and 2) if we don’t do it someone else will and they will come in and conquer us! For example we have the virtue of tolerance, not because it is a Platonic good, but because working with people even if they are weird gives you an advantage over those who are more exclusionary (aka the Romans vs the Greeks).
Just my thoughts; I could be horribly wrong. Still you are right- having atheists talk about natural law is like having them defend the concept of free will. They both were origionally formed and only make sense in theology.
______________________________________________________________________________
Free will:
I recently came across a discussion board posing the question “Do we have free will?”
My reply: “If we didn’t, how would we know?” (Likewise, if we did.)
Tata.
JB